↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mobile phone text messaging to improve medication adherence in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
321 Mendeley
Title
Mobile phone text messaging to improve medication adherence in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011851.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alma J Adler, Nicole Martin, Javier Mariani, Carlos D Tajer, Onikepe O Owolabi, Caroline Free, Norma C Serrano, Juan P Casas, Pablo Perel

Abstract

Worldwide at least 100 million people are thought to have prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD). This population has a five times greater chance of suffering a recurrent cardiovascular event than people without known CVD. Secondary CVD prevention is defined as action aimed to reduce the probability of recurrence of such events. Drug interventions have been shown to be cost-effective in reducing this risk and are recommended in international guidelines. However, adherence to recommended treatments remains sub-optimal. In order to influence non-adherence, there is a need to develop scalable and cost-effective behaviour-change interventions. To assess the effects of mobile phone text messaging in patients with established arterial occlusive events on adherence to treatment, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse effects. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on Web of Science on 7 November 2016, and two clinical trial registers on 12 November 2016. We contacted authors of included studies for missing information and searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions. We included randomised trials with at least 50% of the participants with established arterial occlusive events. We included trials investigating interventions using short message service (SMS) or multimedia messaging service (MMS) with the aim to improve adherence to medication for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Eligible comparators were no intervention or other modes of communication. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In addition, we attempted to contact all authors on how the SMS were developed. We included seven trials (reported in 13 reports) with 1310 participants randomised. Follow-up ranged from one month to 12 months. Due to heterogeneity in the methods, population and outcome measures, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis on these studies. All seven studies reported on adherence, but using different methods and scales. Six out of seven trials showed a beneficial effect of mobile phone text messaging for medication adherence. Dale 2015a, reported significantly greater medication adherence score in the intervention group (Mean Difference (MD) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.97; 123 participants randomised) at six months. Khonsari 2015 reported less adherence in the control group (Relative Risk (RR) 4.09, 95% CI 1.82 to 9.18; 62 participants randomised) at eight weeks. Pandey 2014 (34 participants randomised) assessed medication adherence through self-reported logs with 90% adherence in the intervention group compared to 70% in the control group at 12 months. Park 2014a (90 participants randomised) reported a greater increase of the medication adherence score in the control group, but also measured adherence with an event monitoring system for a number of medications with adherence levels ranging from 84.1% adherence to 86.2% in the intervention group and 79.7% to 85.7% in the control group at 30 days. Quilici 2013, reported reduced odds of non-adherence in the intervention group (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86, 521 participants randomised) at 30 days. Fang 2016, reported that participants given SMS alone had reduced odds of being non-adherent compared to telephone reminders (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63; 280 patients randomised). Kamal 2015 reported higher levels of adherence in the intervention arm (adjusted MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.85; 200 participants randomised). Khonsari 2015 was the only study to report fatal cardiovascular events and only reported two events, both in the control arm. No study reported on the other primary outcomes. No study reported repetitive thumb injury or road traffic crashes or other adverse events that were related to the intervention.Four authors replied to our questionnaire on SMS development. No study reported examining causes of non-adherence or provided SMS tailored to individual patient characteristics.The included studies were small, heterogeneous and included participants recruited directly after acute events. All studies were assessed as having high risk of bias across at least one domain. Most of the studies came from high-income countries, with two studies conducted in an upper middle-income country (China, Malaysia), and one study from a lower middle-income country (Pakistan). The quality of the evidence was found to be very low. There was no obvious conflicts of interest from authors, although only two declared their funding. While the results of this systematic review are promising, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of text message-based interventions for adherence to medications for secondary prevention of CVD. Sufficiently powered, high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 321 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 321 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 13%
Researcher 40 12%
Student > Bachelor 28 9%
Student > Postgraduate 23 7%
Other 67 21%
Unknown 61 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 16%
Psychology 22 7%
Social Sciences 17 5%
Computer Science 14 4%
Other 56 17%
Unknown 79 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2020.
All research outputs
#992,197
of 17,449,565 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,589
of 11,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,254
of 272,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,449,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.